From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5f0b2f174ad085de
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Dr. Hubert B. Keller" <keller@iai.fzk.de>
Subject: Re: tasking in Ada and Annex D question
Date: 1999/02/01
Message-ID: <36B5B157.5080216@iai.fzk.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 439359915
Distribution: world
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <793jl9$hf@drn.newsguy.com>
X-Accept-Language: de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Does Annex D
> not have some sort of "quantum" based scheduling? since both
> tasks are of equal priority, one will expect that one task will
> run out of its quantum, and the next ready task to become
> compute, no? (I really need to study AnnexD too :)

This mean Round Robin as a fair scheduling algorithm.

The showed behavior seems correct if having 2 tasks with same priority
and no delay. Using a delay of 0 results in preempting the task actually running
and
requeueing it at the tail of the queue and processing the next one.
Wether round robin is available or not depends on the implementation.
(See pragma dispatching_policy)

H.K.